How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

General discussions on songwriting, mixing, music business and other music related topics.
trevelyen
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:12 am
Contact:

How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by trevelyen » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:22 pm

So I recently got myself a 96khz/24 bit portable sound recorder and have started making my own drum samples.

I have been looking forward to this moment for a long time...

one problem....

MY CPU PACKED UP ITS STUFF AND BROKE UP WITH ME THEN MOVED OUT AND STARTED A NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH A POTATO

I'd like to remain using 96khz 24 bit audio because no matter what anyone says - it sounds better. Much better.

So I ask thee, how can I bring my CPU back to normal levels again? Hardware solution?

Thanks
T
Pro 8.5, W10/64, i7 4790, 8RAM, GTX960, Audiophile 192, SATA

Romantique Tp
External Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 3:25 pm
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by Romantique Tp » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:44 pm

I'm no doctor but if 96kHz recording sounds better to you, I'm afraid that you're probably half bat. Most of your audience probably aren't half-bats though, and even if they were most of their speakers can barely reproduce sound above 16kHz properly, so feel free to record at 48kHz or 44.1kHz to save CPU cycles and disk space.
Every time someone says "it must be easy to add/fix", a programmer dies.

Cubase Pro and Wavelab Pro (latest), Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit, MSI Z87-G45 GAMING, i5 4690k, GeForce GTX 760, almost every Steinberg plugin and expansion, Trilian, Komplete 10, etc etc etc etc

trevelyen
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by trevelyen » Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:14 pm

hahaha oh well back to my cave i go
Pro 8.5, W10/64, i7 4790, 8RAM, GTX960, Audiophile 192, SATA

trevelyen
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by trevelyen » Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:20 pm

anyway does anyone know of any hardware that can give me more cpu headroom?
Pro 8.5, W10/64, i7 4790, 8RAM, GTX960, Audiophile 192, SATA

chilam
New Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by chilam » Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:33 pm

i7 6950X perhaps
Cubase 8.5.2 Win7 64 Pro SP1
i7 6700K 32GB RAM 2x 850 EVO SSD 1x WD Black
RME HDSP Hammerfall
Zanussi E-50 Quickwash Tumbledry combo, Hotpoint FFDUX Fridgefreezer, Whirlpool Self-cleaning freestanding range, LG 2.0 Microwave Stainless Steel

User avatar
Grim
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 5064
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:08 pm
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by Grim » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:23 pm

An SSL and a rack of hardware compressors?
i7 5820k @3.7Ghz, 16Gb, W10Pro, Cubase 9.0x, Cubase 8.5.x, Audient iD22, Zoom UAC-2, Wavelab Elements 9.x, Nektar Impact GX61

trevelyen
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by trevelyen » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:09 pm

aw man im gonna be saving for 10 years
Pro 8.5, W10/64, i7 4790, 8RAM, GTX960, Audiophile 192, SATA

airflamesred
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 2:25 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by airflamesred » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:16 pm

trevelyen wrote: aw man im gonna be saving for 10 years
By which time there will be a widespread outbreak of 512khz. Chase at your peril!
Koby drums, Triggera Krigg, Bix, megadrum, Kontakt. samples from All and Sundry.

trevelyen
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by trevelyen » Mon Jul 25, 2016 10:48 pm

To be honest id probably appreciate it if more people could discourage me from recording in 96khz cos im pretty hell bent on this
Pro 8.5, W10/64, i7 4790, 8RAM, GTX960, Audiophile 192, SATA

keyman_sam
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:52 am
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by keyman_sam » Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:50 am

trevelyen wrote:To be honest id probably appreciate it if more people could discourage me from recording in 96khz cos im pretty hell bent on this
Keep two projects open - one for recording, another one for producing. Recording at 96 KHz, then import this in your session which is at 48 KHz.

Basically get all your recording done in 96, work with 48 then when it comes to rendering, render at 96.

Then your audience can hear it in iPhone speakers at a glorious 8 KHz. :mrgreen: :lol:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drag and drop from Cubase to anywhere else & vice-versa: http://vstxmltranslator.blogspot.com/

Primary: ASUS P8Z68-V LX INTEL Z68 CROSSFIRE, i7-2600K 3.40 GHz, 20 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD (OS), 2 TB (Samples), 1 TB (Audio), nVidia GTX 750 Ti, GT520, Win 7 x64, NI Komplete 9, iZotope MPB, Cubase stock plugins
VEP Slave: i7 920, 16 GB RAM, no sound card, Win 7 x64. Runs Omnisphere, EW CC, Kontakt

DAW: Cubase 7.5.4

RME HDSP 9652 (main) <-> RME Babyface (ADAT frontend)

trevelyen
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by trevelyen » Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:45 am

haha amazing ill give it a bash :)

Thanks
T
Pro 8.5, W10/64, i7 4790, 8RAM, GTX960, Audiophile 192, SATA

Manike
Member
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by Manike » Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:26 pm

I'd work at 48Khz and use plugins that are capable of oversampling. Fabfilter etc.

It's the application of EQ that benefits from higher sample rates.
8-Core Trashcan Mac Pro : Mojave : Cubase10.0.15 : MOTU828x : Nektar P6 :
Macbook pro : Mojave
http://www.manikemusic.com

User avatar
peakae
Senior Member
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:15 pm
Location: Bedroom
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by peakae » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:55 pm

my old edirol handheld also sounds/records much better at 96k. (old cheap ADDA converters)
when importing and converting them to 48k or 44.1k in Cubase, they still sound great.
Worth a try.
Cubase Pro 10, Wavelab Elements 9, I7 3770K , win10x64, 16Gb Ram, RME Raydat, Steinberg MR816x, Motu 828mkII, Behringer ADA8200, Yamaha moXF6, Steinberg UR242, Yamaha THR 10, Grace Design m900, CMC TP, CMC CH.

krevvy
Junior Member
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by krevvy » Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:29 am

I use an i7 6700k recording live band (12 tracks of drums, 2 bass, 2 guitar amps, Rhodes, vocals etc)
Usually all have either slate vmr vcc... Or softube console 1 brit a channel on all..
Record at 88.2k and still have plenty of horsepower left for mixing/fx/automation.. vsti etc..

The difference between 88.2 and 96 is negligible to my ears.. but you get slightly less cpu usage which is a good sweet spot.

Although the cpu use is more.. I do find when it's mixed to 44.1 it sounds more natural and smoother than if it was originally recorded at 44.1, the plugins sound better processed.

Even my i5 surface pro 4 copes fine with tracking big 88.2 projects, but cpu runs out if I try to do too much in the way of processing.

On my main daw I use RME's hdsp9652 into a dangerous source..
The mobile rig is surface pro 4 with RME ufx and octamic xtc .

User avatar
matjones
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:44 pm
Location: Here....
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by matjones » Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:02 am

The reason 96khz sounds better on your system is because of your sound card.

I used to run an M Audio card too but bit the bullet and upgraded to RME about 5 years ago now....
I also used to track at 96Khz with the M Audio card for the same reasons you are..... i now use 44.1khz as even that sounds vastly superior to the M Audio unit.... As Peake states with his Edirol unit, it's the converters.

Up until a few months ago i was working on a project with someone who still has the same M Audio Delta 1010 i used to have, eventually i had to ask him to send anything he tracked at his place over at 88.2khz for me, again for the same reason. I don't think the M Audio clocking is as stable or accurate as RME either.

One of the best things i've ever done was to ditch M Audio. I tracked some acoustic guitars for some friends yesterday, KM184 into SSL into RME...... no noise, no weirdness, no need to track at 96khz...... just 3 VERY happy people at the end of the session.
Cubase 10.0.20 Asus P9X79 LE, i7 4820K@ 3.7GHz, 32GB Corsair 1600 RAM, Asus R5 230, RME Multiface II PCIe, SSL Alpha Channel, UAD2 Solo/Quad, UA6176, Pod X3 Pro, Slate VCC/VTM/Trigger etc, SoundToys 5, Waves 10, HALion 6, The Grand 3, BFD3 (+ Expansions), WL9.5, Melodyne Studio 4, Arturia VC7, Relab LX480, iZotope MPS, Eventide XI, Various toys, Telefunken, Neumann, AKG,Sontronics, Shure Mics, Adam A7X and Avantone monitors, AKG K702, ATH-M70x, Nektar P6, Warwick, Spector Basses, Gibson Les Paul Studio & loads of other junk.


Minds are like parachutes, they work best when they're open.

User avatar
jose7822
Member
Posts: 900
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by jose7822 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:52 pm

You already have a capable system. Like a couple of people said, ditch your audio interface and get an RME. It's money well spent, trust me!

BTW, I record, mix AND master whole projects at 96KHz all the time (just cause I can). Then again, I'm also using UAD plugins, which do offload a bit of processing from my computer. YMMV.
GIGABYTE X99 Designare EX | Intel Core i7 6800K (OC'ed to 4.2 GHz) | 64GB of Corsair Dominator Platinum (3333 MHz) | EVGA GTX 1070 FTW | Corsair H115i Water Cooler | Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro 1200 Watt PSU | Windows 10 Pro | Cubase Pro 8.5 64 bit | Studio One v4.1.1 | Lynx Aurora (n) 8TB | UAD 2 Octo | UAD 2 Quad

trevelyen
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by trevelyen » Mon Aug 22, 2016 1:46 am

thanks for all the info on this guys really opened my mind, looking for an RME now and will upgrade to a i7 6950X just as soon as i have taken over the world
Pro 8.5, W10/64, i7 4790, 8RAM, GTX960, Audiophile 192, SATA

vinark
Member
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:24 pm

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by vinark » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:58 pm

trevelyen wrote:thanks for all the info on this guys really opened my mind, looking for an RME now and will upgrade to a i7 6950X just as soon as i have taken over the world
HAHAHA no that was my plan.... And I already have the RME (and yes that helps a lot although no 96k here,)

jazzyP
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by jazzyP » Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:18 pm

I have a RME HDSP 9652 PCI if you are interested

nexis
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:49 pm
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by nexis » Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:45 am

Try freezing your tracks.
Cubase 10 PRO, Steinberg MR816 CSX (2 of them), Windows 10 Pro, i7 Processor, 24 gigs of RAM, 3 TB Drives, Dual Monitors

themarqueeyears
Junior Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:43 pm
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by themarqueeyears » Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:52 pm

trevelyen wrote:To be honest id probably appreciate it if more people could discourage me from recording in 96khz cos im pretty hell bent on this
Well I'm 53 so 96khz is truly b*ll*cks for me as I'm lucky to clearly hear above 16KHz :-)

So ..... before you potentially waste your money.

Get someone else to properly and scientifically ABX double blind test you and make sure you can pick out 96KHz over 44.1 KHZ 100% of the time otherwise your just guesssing and therefore wasting time money and rescources in general.

Personally I've yet to see and be present with ANYONE in a a room who can pick 96KHz out when double blind ABX tested over 24/44.1 so there you go :-)

vinark
Member
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:24 pm

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by vinark » Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:55 pm

Best advice ever and really do it double blind! If you don't, just stop using 96k, that is an order! ;-)

User avatar
tedannemann
Junior Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:52 pm
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by tedannemann » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:37 pm

As already suggested a new audio interface could help (better driver performance / buffer usage).
I highly recommend UAD Apollo interfaces as you gain the additional CPU power for the included plugins (Quad system for 96 kHz at minimum).
BTW this is where the UAD systems still shine (besides the pure quality of the plugin coding itself) -> higher sampling rates. There are still home users who deny the UAD systems the right to exist in times of multicore processors. But everyone working with higher sampling rates knows how fast a CPU is eaten up by a bunch of good plugins.
A good multicore system, UAD power and a lot of bouncing usually does the trick.

And don't listen to these people who clearly do not know what they are talking about. Higher sampling rates always sound better, always(!) as soon as you do the slightest processing! This is the same simple minded bunch of people who are telling you that every DAW sound the same because they null (of course they NEVER EVER null as soon as you only turn one single knob(!)).
Higher sampling rate -> higher quality processing -> better results (depending on the source material, highly audible even after downsampling to 44 kHz(!)) -> but sadly not in Cubase (see here: viewtopic.php?f=226&t=101447)
Cubase Pro 8.5.20 | Mac OS X 10.11.5 | UAD Apollo 8 | Endless list of plug-ins and samples

vinark
Member
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:24 pm

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by vinark » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:41 pm

Lol he asked for discouragment

User avatar
tedannemann
Junior Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:52 pm
Contact:

Re: How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

Post by tedannemann » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:52 pm

vinark wrote:Lol he asked for discouragment
Once you taste blood, you're hooked. :D
Cubase Pro 8.5.20 | Mac OS X 10.11.5 | UAD Apollo 8 | Endless list of plug-ins and samples

Post Reply

Return to “Steinberg Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest